• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Chyort

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. Huge thanks for updating this for 1.1 Truly a must have mod.
  2. Chyort

    Devnote Tuesday: Optimistic Goals

    Completely understand the delay, and agree entirely with it. But as far as contracts go, while weighted contracts are an improvement, could we possibly get something more user controlled? It would suck to do 200+ part contracts early game for funding because your broke, then get spammed with them long after you start pressing further out, and actually have cash. Something like, "We are interested in capturing an asteroid! Will anyone fund our endeavors? You get to pick the asteroid!" Or "We plan on landing on the mun. Taking bids on stuff involving the mun." Being able to advertise what we want to do and actually get some relevant contracts would be sweet. By contract type, body, or both. Something i was honestly hoping strategies would introduce, not the "Meh" feature we have currently. *Edit* after reading the rest of the thread i see the weighted contracts wont be as potentially punishing as i feared they might. But i would still appreciate some hands on control.
  3. Chyort

    What did you do in KSP today?

    My part counts thank you.
  4. Heat shield on one end, Airbrakes on the other to keep it angled properly as it skims the atmo(And you shouldn't have to dive as deep), and possibly radiators hidden in the heat shield's shadow to help magically keep everything cooler. That is what i would try anyways.
  5. I figure i might as well throw this out there first. My previous post was never meant to throw wood on the fire, so to speak. It was simply about my confusion over how the stock radiators were released/handled. No more and no less. And my question remains as far as i can tell. If you go with B or B1 as it seems most people in the thread are requesting, How will that affect other mods that make stock-alike radiators or reactors that use stock heating? Rebalancing 1 stock engine to be more in line with your much larger pack is one thing, and it causes a fair degree of confusion by itself from what i have seen. What happens if you do the same to multiple radiators and, from the sounds of it, the stock heating system? Not trying to take a side at the moment, just looking for a little clarification i guess.
  6. Can't say i am fond of the "Surprise!" moment where they reveal stock radiators in the 1.0.3 release... After mod makers dumped dozens of hours into fixing something that should have been in 1.0. Without even mentioning the fact that it was going to be in 1.0.3, so mod makers didn't waste their own time. Which is made even more confusing with rover recommending yours all while building his own. With that said however, it is stock now... If you go with B or B1 how will that affect other mods that add radiators/reactors/whatever that use stock? Which will cause less headaches down the road? I was waiting for 1.0.3 before starting a new save, so i honestly don't know the pro's/cons of both systems. I am just afraid of conflicts down the road.
  7. Dont get me wrong, I will use them either way but having something perfectly flat like that just feels wrong to me. Even a slightly bubbled top would sooth my spinal reflex of "Flat! Drag! Bad!" heh That might work better than a full sloped/shaped top too. Duno.
  8. i normally design my landers to do sub-orbital hops, which with refueling tends to put them on the larger end of the scale. So dumping the legs is mostly out for me. Although, to be honest, very few places have an atmo at all. So it isn't a huge issue. And in my personal experience, fairings pretty much go out the window once you start getting up into this part-size range. Tuck the small stuff into service bays, and just eat the drag from the landing gear. Which is part of why i like the appearance of the smaller of the 2 i guess. *Shrugs* Any way you look at it though, having landing legs this size is a huge plus in my book, thanks for all the effort.
  9. hah, i am starting to drool over those large landing legs. My only question though is why are the larger ones flat on the top? Seems like that would just create extra drag.
  10. Skip the mun and go to minmus. Lower gravity makes it all so much easier, not to mention all the perfectly flat biomes. Yeah it takes a little more DV to get an intercept, but you save so much on all the landings. You don't even need landing legs most of the time, just balance on the engine. Personally i try to rush the gravity scanner as well, once you get that you can grab a report from high/low orbit over every biome with a polar orbit. Huge science without ever having to land, and if you throw it on a disposable probe with an antenna you don't even have to worry about bringing the ....... back.
  11. Chyort

    [1.5.x] Community Resource Pack

    From what i recall NF doesn't have vaporization. So odds are it is coming from real fuels, and his boiloff stuff.
  12. It should be even easier now... Instead of shipping a 100+ton lander or whatever, You ship up an empty 20ton lander and use ore to fuel it after it is on eve.
  13. Personally i would love to see that referenced in the first post. I am fairly sure most people are looking for exactly the same thing. I know i was.
  14. Chyort

    [1.7.x] Community Tech Tree (April 15)

    gotta vote for #3 as well. With the old stock tree and nodes not showing up until stuff was unlocked, there was some degree of guess and check. "Ok, this node is junk, but there might be something after it!" So with CTT you ended up with possibly blank nodes that led to dead-ends. Annoying to say the least, and the best thing to do was to hide them entirely. But with the current tree showing everything at the start it is easy to see where you are going. And i would like to see CTT continue this as well. Seeing everything, even with empty nodes, is preferable. Not to mention it would be easier on modders. They don't have to unlock the nodes they want to use, and consider dependancies and everything else.